Judgment:
Vijender Jain, J.
(1) Nobody has been appearing on behalf of the respondent-DDA in this matter inspire of the matter being on 'Regular Board' for the last so manyhearings.
(2) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. U.L. Watwani, has argued that the petitioner was allotted a flat initially on 15.1.84 in Category-11 on Ground Floor in Pocket-TV, Sector-B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi under the Self-FinancingScheme. Subsequently, the respondent vide its letter dated 26.12.84 informed the petitioner to deposit the second Installment by 31.12.84, third Installment by 30.6.85and fourth Installment was asked to be deposited by 31.12.85. All these installments were deposited by the petitioner in time after taking due extensions from theAuthority.
(3) It seems that as the flats were not constructed in the above-said area, the respondent wrote to the petitioner vide its letter dated 24.12.87, which is at page 48of the paper book, that the allotment of Category-11 Flat in the aforesaid Pocket could not be given and it was decided to allot petitioner a Category-11 Flat in Pocket-A,Sector-B & C at Kishangarh. It was also indicated to the petitioner that estimated cost of the flat now allocated to the petitioner would be Rs. 1,86,300.00 instead of Rs.l,74,000.00 as was communicated by the respondent vide its earlier letter dated15.1.84. Thereafter the petitioner was given the possession of the said flat on 14.6.88.Prior to that, petitioner received another demand letter from the respondent dated28.12.87 inter alias demanding a sum of Rs. 30,046.50 paise after giving due credit for the amount deposited by the petitioner towards previous allotment. In the said demand letter, which is at page 49 of the paper book, the respondent indicated that the due date for the first Installment was 10.4.83, second Installment on 10.10.83, third installment on 10.4.84 and fourth Installment was to be paid on or before 10.10.84.It had also been mentioned in the said letter that in relation to the interest as worked out and intimated to the petitioner, if any interest was to be payable by the respondent-DDA for delayed allotment, same would also be informed to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the amount so demanded by the respondent.After the deposit of the said amount, the petitioner received another demand for the respondent dated 25.4.88 whereby a sum of Rs. 29,888.10 paise was demanded towards interest for belated payment. The petitioner paid the said sum also and represented to the respondent that since they have charged the petitioner from10.4.83, which was due front the allottees of that scheme, though the petitioner was allotted the flat only on 28.12.87 and taking that into consideration, respondent ought to have give interest at the rate of 10% to the petitioner after a lapse of two and a half years as per the policy of respondent which the respondent themselves have admitted in their letter addressed to the petitioner dated 15.11.85 which isAnnexure-'D' to the petition.
(4) Mr. Watwani has further contended that respondent for the purposes of equalizing the petitioner had charged the interest from 10.4.83 although respondent was not entitled to charge interest from the petitioner as the allotment of the flat was changed by the respondent themselves pursuant to the letter dated 15.1.84 and if the respondent had charged the interest from the petitioner from 10.4.83, then the petitioner was also entitled to be paid the interest from 10.4.83 for not giving the flat for two and a half years. inspire of various representations made by the petitioner,petitioner did not hear anything from the respondent in this regard. In support of his contention, Mr. Watwani has cited the case of R. Balmma v. Delhi Administration 6- Ors., : 40(1990)DLT409 .
(5) I have perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. In the counteraffidavit, no Explanationn has been given by the respondent as to why the petitioner had not been given interest, which he was entitled for in accordance with the terms and policy of the respondent but a vague stand has been taken by the respondent that amount of interest was paid whenever permissible.
(6) In view of the fact that the petitioner has already got the possession and paid the demand, no order qua the impugned demand letters can be made. However,keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends ofjustice, I allow this writ petition with the direction to the respondent to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 10% per annum from 10.4.83 till possession is granted to the petitioner in terms of the policy of the respondent. The amount so calculated be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. In case the respondent failed to make the payment within eight weeks, thereafter on the amount due, the petitioner shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Rule is madeabsolute.With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.